The one from 2009 does at least say that if you ever want to be able to play again, don't do it, however the reasoning at the end is misleading. It claims that "problem gamblers" should chargeback as this is the best way to protect themselves from being lured to play more because the chargeback blacklist would mean no casino would accept them. It tries to make it look as though by encouraging problem gamblers to charge back, they are doing the casinos a service by enabling them to ensure such problem gamblers are excluded in future.
They have quite a technical argument as to why (in the US at least) you can skirt around the laws about actually lying to the bank in order to get the money back. This legal argument may or may not work, it would need a test case to determine which. Get caught lying on an affidavit, and you could end up doing time, even if you got the money back.
Now this is US specific due to how casinos get around UIGEA, yet the US has been the one country that casinos in the past have NEVER imposed additional terms on their players, which for others they have defended as being "down to higher levels of fraud from your particular country".
Clearly, the HIGHEST level of fraud is likely to come from the US, and helped along nicely by UIGEA.
Here in the UK, a card deposit would be correctly billed, and if a player tried claiming they had never heard of, nor authorised, the gambling transaction, this could easily be countered by the merchant contesting that the deposit was authorised, and that play took place from the customers' own machine. It would be very hard to argue that this was anything other than an "inside job", and thus almost impossible to get a refund via the bank. A straight chargeback would be out of the question, instead a UK player would have to argue that they did make the deposit, but that the service they signed up for was not provided. If you placed a bet and lost, then the service WAS provided, the player was merely unlucky.
Rather than running scared of eWallets and insisting players used the "preferred deposit method" of credit/debit card, casinos should ban such cards altogether, and insist on the use of deposit methods where such chargebacks are not possible.
A player can't charge back a Neteller deposit, yet so many casinos freeze Neteller users out of the best promotions, and only allow players who deposit by card to receive them. This tells me that for non US casinos at least, the fear of chargeback from a card user is outweighed by whatever additional cost or risk is involved with Neteller or Skrill deposits.
However, the vast majority of player unfriendly terms that have been cropping up have NOTHING to do with chargebacks, so it is a weak argument to say that chargebacks are the main driver of the tightening up of terms and conditions.
I don't think anybody moderates this Rip Off Report site, and there seem to have been some pretty creative and questionable claims about some companies featured there. If it WAS moderated, I would have expected that at least a moderator would have stressed the dangers of trying to manipulate UIGEA in order to get a "free shot" gamble at casinos.
(rolling my eyes at them, not you Chayton 
)
And then realized that ALL of these people went to Google and searched for "Facebook login" and clicked the first bloody link (which was an article about logging into Facebook) that showed up thinking they were going to Facebook! The "Change Facebook back to the way it was" comments went on for pages and pages, even after the blog owners put a big red disclaimer at the top and bottom of the article saying "This ISN'T Facebook!!"
